> We can't afford to give a child the kind of support and resources and opportunities that a responsible parent knows it is their job to provide.
that's a lot of subjective terminology delivered as absolute truth. If I disagree with you on the amount of resources, let's say I think it's 10% of what you think, does that make me an irresponsible parent? If I double the resource expenditure for marginal improvement, does that make me more responsible?
Your argument is simply not clearly defined. A lot of people may feel that way, I'd argue if it's not clearly defined they're probably wrong. The kind of support and resources a child needs are nutritious food, decent clothing and a mold and leak free dwelling. Those are the only things that cost money. Then, you have to teach them things and make them play a lot. Don't abuse them. All of those are free, unless you treat your life like a corporation that needs to maximize monetary return, then you'll consider the opportunity cost to talking to your kids. I'd say if that's how you approach it you'll damage your kids no matter how much money you throw at them.
I have kids, they have good clothes, they eat nutritious food, definitely above average on the nutrition front, they live in a dry, clean, comfortable dwelling with me, and they keep themselves entertained. I'd say in total their expenses cost me less than 500 bucks a month. They don't live in a dysfunctional environment, they learn faster than their peers, they are in good health, they're free to pursue their interests and hone their talents and they are well entertained. Kids aren't that expensive. You grew up poor, I grew up poor. My problem wasn't resources, it was the priorities of my parents, and when I look at the world, in almost every circumstance I see the same thing. You'd have to go to Somalia to find real prominent examples of kids being fucked over by lack of resources, in almost every other case it's the priorities of parents.